Can a credit reference agency pass on incorrect information yet be free from any responsibility to clear up the resulting mess?

Guardian journalist Katharine Viner recounted recently how she had been the victim of identity fraud, possibly by someone stealing documents from her dustbin. Like most victims, she found herself up against a wall of bureaucracy.

The main culprits were Nottingham-based multinational credit reference agency Experian, which had passed on the incorrect information about Ms Viner to banks, and seemed remarkably reluctant to sort out the mess.

Indeed, in a letter published in the Guardian about the case, Experian's consumer relations director says a "fraudster can cause a very complex muddle which often takes a long time to sort out," adding: "It is often necessary for fraud victims to liaise directly with lenders to enable them to establish the facts and put things right."

Suppose another newspaper were to publish an article saying Ms Viner regularly invented her stories, because it had received a tip-off to that effect. That would be no more or less defamatory than what Experian did to her. Once the falsity of the allegation was established, it is most unlikely the newspaper would be saying it was for her to correct the statement.

The amount of libel damages she could receive would be affected by the steps the newspaper had taken. It would, for instance, be expected to contact every publication she had ever written for, saying the allegations were totally groundless.

Experian's suggestion that it is down to her to contact those it has sent false information to is, if looked at in that way, disgraceful.

Equally worrying is the willingness of Experian and its main competitor, Equifax, to publish adverse information about credit histories where there is a disputed debt.

Last month Jobs & Money featured the way mobile phone operators insist customers pay for calls after phones are stolen. Credit reference agencies were a recurring theme in readers' responses. Rather than justify their claims to a court, the operators were able to intimidate many into paying specious debts by threatening to report them to such agencies.

Such a report would be libellous both when made to the agency and when passed on by the agency to any other prospective creditor. In 1908 the judges of the Privy Council ruled, in a decision that still seems to be the law today, the fact that the agency passing on the information believes it to be true is not a defence.

Ms Viner spent "hours and hours" dealing with low-level employees. A better tactic might have been to insist on talking to chief executive, John Saunders, or even John Peace the chief executive of GUS, which owns Experian. Once she had made clear that the time of such "important" people was going to be spent sorting things out, matters would inevitably have been dealt with more efficiently.

These episodes show how unfortunate it is that last month an attempt by a Wakefield man, Brian Robertson, to have the sale of electoral registers to credit reference agencies ruled unlawful, failed in the High Court.

In 2001 the court decided that selling the register to direct marketing organisations was an interference with an individual's privacy and hence his human rights. This resulted in Regulations enabling people to have their names removed from the version of the register which was sold to junk mailers.

However, a full version can still be bought by credit reference agencies. Mr Robertson claimed that the Regulations were inconsistent with the previous decision and still breached his human rights.

Unfortunately, he did not turn up for the hearing in July. Perhaps not surprisingly, lawyers representing Experian and Equifax as well as the government, all of whom had an interest in the sales continuing, found it easy to persuade Mr Justice Kay that the public interest in preventing fraud and bad debt outweighed the invasion of privacy.

The judge's conclusion seemed to be based on the agencies doing no more than providing accurate, factual information which may be no more than a minimal interference with anybody's rights.

Had his attention been drawn to the agency's attitude to identity theft cases, and the way they can be used to bludgeon people into paying disputed debts, the outcome might have been different.